Walters (2002) - Deportation, Expulsion, and The International Police of Aliens

This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]
On: 31 March 2015, At: 11:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Citizenship Studies
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccst20
Deportation, Expulsion, and

the International Police of
Aliens
William Walters
Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: William Walters (2002) Deportation, Expulsion, and

the International Police of Aliens, Citizenship Studies, 6:3, 265-292, DOI:
10.1080/1362102022000011612
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1362102022000011612
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
Citizenship Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002
Deportation, Expulsion, and the

International Police of Aliens1
WILLIAM WALTERS
Compared with refugee or immigration policy, the historical and political

analysis of deportatio n is poorly developed. This paper suggests some lines
along which critical studies of deportatio n might proceed. First, it argues that
we can historicize and denaturaliz e deportation by setting it within a wider eld
of political and administrativ e practices. This is done by comparing modern
deportatio n practice with other historical forms of expulsion. Second, the paper
interrogate s the forms of governmentalit y which invest the practice of deportation, and asks what they might tell us about modern citizenship . It argues that
deportatio n can be seen as one key element in the internationa l police of aliens.
See the world through different eyes! Travel in exotic style with
Lufthansas Deportation Class service. Dont miss outact now
to take advantage of our specially priced low fares from North
America or Europe to destination s all over the world. We are
constantly expanding and improving our Deportation Class service, which remains the most economical way to travel the globe.
With Lufthansa Deportation Class you can now reach dozens of
exciting destination s worldwideTunis, Damascus, Jakarta,
Alma Ata, Harare, Lima, Quito 2
This parody comes from the website of Deportation-class.com . Anti-deportatio n
activism has for some time been one of the more prominent and visible aspects
of political campaigns against exclusion and restrictionist immigration policies in
Western Europe. Amongst the most notable of these have been the sanctuary
movements, including the occupation of churches by people threatened with
deportation, 3 and protests at airports around airlines that regularly transport the
deportees. But recently there has been a shift of emphasis on the part of some
activistsaway from a focus on individual anti-deportation actions to the
targeting of major national airline companies. Just as clean clothes campaigns
have engaged in image polluting campaigns against high-pro le brands like
Nike and The Gap, these groups and networks subvert the typical images,
colours, logos and themes of airlines and holiday imagery, revealing their
Dr. William Walters, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa ON K1S 3A6,
Canada; e-mail: wwalters@ccs.carleton.ca
ISSN 1362-102 5 Print; 1469-3593 Online/02/030265-2 8 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/136210202200001161 2
265
William Walters
connection to deportation. The aim is to strike at the system in terms of its
commercial vulnerability . One of the more imaginative of these is the Deportation Class project af liated with the German antiracist network, Kein Mensch
Ist Illegal,4 from which this quote comes.
What is so powerful about these tactics is how they unsettle our view of
deportation. From seeing it as merely the unpleasant branch of a refugee and
immigration system we apprehend it in a different light: as an industry. Instead
of an administrativ e procedure we are provoked into seeing it as a system which
implicates all manner of agentsnot just police and immigration of cials, but
airline executives, pilots, stewards, and other passengers. Most pointedly, we are
reminded that private companies make money from this form of suffering.
Deportation is business. Immediately one makes connections with other moments in the history of the mass-orchestrated and forced movement of people.
The history of transportation , for instance, is replete with stories of greedy
shipping companies that were contracted to ship Englands criminal class to
New South Wales. But we are also struck by the fact that deportation is political
and open to contestation. Deportation Class displaces the practice of deportation.
It enables us to recognize it in terms of other lineages of practices. In this way
it unsettles our present.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to this process of rethinking and
expanding what we understand by deportation, not at the level of its popular
representation, but by subjecting the practice of deportation to historical and
genealogical analysis. Deportation has been studied in terms of internationa l law
(Goodwin-Gill, 1978; Henckaerts, 1995; Pellonpaa, 1984). It is also, increasingly, the subject of policy sciences which seek to make it more ef cient and
humane (Koser, 2000). But with a couple of notable exceptions,5 it has not been
studied as a political or historical practice, as a disciplinary tactic and an
instrument of population regulation. Caestecker is therefore correct to observe
that (w)hereas immigration and refugee policy have already been closely
scrutinized, the historical analysis of expulsion policy is still in its infancy
(Caestecker, 1998, p. 96). This is somewhat surprising since other forms of
expulsion and forced migrationsuch as ethnic cleansing (Bell-Fialkoff , 1993;
Jackson Preece, 1998; McGarry, 1998), religious expulsion (Kedar, 1996), the
transportatio n of criminals (Hughes, 1986), political exile and population transfer
(de Zayas, 1985, 1988; Rieber, 2000)have indeed been subjected to such
critical scrutiny. Perhaps it is the case that these other forms appear so draconian.
Deportation, because it remains embedded within the contemporary administrative practice of Western states, strikes us as less remarkable.
The genealogical study of deportation as a practice of power is valid and
timely not just as a means to enhance our understandin g of a relatively ignored,
but highly pertinent aspect of public policy. More broadly, this paper will make
a contributio n to the genealogical investigatio n of modern citizenship. Citizenship studies is of course now a vast eld; the area to which this study pertains
is the growing sub eld of research exploring citizenship in terms of the
citizen/alien relationship (Baubock, 1994a,b; Benhabib, 1999; Carens, 1995;
Soysal, 1994) as well as that between the citizen and other gures of alterity
(Isin, 2002). Following Benhabib (1999), we can note that these investigation s
266
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

of the alien/citizen complex can be divided into normative, political philosoph y
and sociological approaches. The latter, she suggests, view citizenship in terms
of key social practices such as collective identity and social rights and
bene ts. This paper is situated closer to the sociological pole. However, it will
assume a different conception of social practice from this. In highlightin g
deportation, I am engaging with practices that are constitutive of citizenship. Put
differently, I will be treating deportation as a technology of citizenship
(Cruikshank, 1999). What I have in mind here are the spatial practices that Engin
Isin suggests are the central, but often ignored factors, in the formation of group
identities and relations. As he puts it: groups cannot materialize themselves as
real without realizing themselves in space, without creating con gurations of
buildings , patterns, and arrangements, and symbolic representations of these
arrangements (Isin, 2002, p. 43). To this end he reminds us that buildings like
the guildhall, con gurations like the forum, and arrangements like the assembly
play an irreducible role in the constitutio n of citizenship.
Many of the technologies which Isin discusses involve the constitutio n of
citizenship at the level of the city. In this paper I want to push the concept in
a different direction, onto a more international plane. In studying deportation I
will be tackling one of the constitutiv e practices by which citizenship is
implicated in what Barry Hindess terms the international management of
population . Western discussion s of citizenship have largely considered citizenship as an aspect of life within a state (Hindess, 2000, p. 1495). However,
Hindess argues that to properly understand the modern, international culture of
citizenship we have to look at the role of citizenship in the overall government
of the population covered by the modern state system (Hindess, 2000, p. 1495).
He suggests that we need to see citizenship not only in terms of rights,
responsibilitie s and identitie s within a polity, but as a marker of identi cation,
advising state and nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individual
belongs. On this view, the remarkable thing about citizenship is that it
represents a regime that regulates the division of humanity into distinct national
populations and operates as a dispersed regime of governance of the larger
human population . We will see that while the ends and the functions of
expulsion have been historically variable, the modern practice of deportation is
central to the allocation of population s to states.
This paper pursues a twofold strategy to historicize and problematize deportation as a political practice. In the rst section I situate it within a wider eld
of historical practices. Here I develop the theme that we can understand
deportation as a particular form of expulsion. We should not take for granted its
location within contemporary immigration policy, nor its connection with the
government of aliens. By considering some of the various ways in which people
have been expelled, cast out, or banished, the reasons given and the methods
chosen, we can grasp something of the particularity of deportation. In the second
section I set the practice of deportation within a different analytical eldforms
of power. This serves the purpose of linking it to wider questions concerning the
government of population. Far from being merely an unchanging administrative
routine, or a procedure subject to gradual and humane evolution, deportation
might be seen in terms of certain governmental practices. Here I argue that
267
William Walters
deportation has af nities to the international police of population . In the nal
part of the paper I consider the detention centres and other incarceral spaces that
are today a part of the deportation game, and relate them to Giorgio Agambens
(1998) thematization of the camp. Though the practice of deportation might
seem to imply abstract, inter-nationa l spaces, rather than the more intimate, lived
spaces of the city, we will see that it can be theoretically and empirically
grounded in the gure of the camp.
Forms of Expulsion
What is deportation and what might we learn about it by seeing it as a particular
form of expulsion? Immediately we need to confront a terminological question.
Goodwin-Gill begins one of the more extended treatments of the subject in
international law with the following observation: The word expulsion is
commonly used to describe that exercise of State power which secures the
removal, either voluntarily , under threat of forcible removal, or forcibly, of an
alien from the territory of a State (Goodwin-Gill, 1978, p. 201). Goodwin-Gill
notes that terminologies vary from state to state. For instance, at certain times
in its history the United States reserved the term deportation to refer strictly to
proceedings initiated at a port of entry designed to send aliens on their way after
refusal of admission. Henckaerts (1995, p. 5) notes that expulsion is more
generally used in international law, whereas deportation is more common in
municipal law. In what follows I shall be taking deportation to refer generally
to the removal of aliens by state power from the territory of that state, either
voluntarily , under threat of force, or forcibly. This is how the term is
commonly used in many countries today. By utilizing deportation in this way,
I am able to retain expulsion as a term to refer a much broader eld of practices.
This eld will encompass the forced or mandated removal of individuals and
groups from territories under the authority of political, and sometimes quasilegal and private authorities. In this way we will be able to specify deportation
as one particular type of expulsion, albeit one that now occupies a central place
in modern immigration policy.
In the following section I compare deportation, de ned as above, with other
forms of expulsion. I make no claim as to the exhaustivenes s of my list. Nor do
I want to imply these are in any way watertight or mutually exclusive categories.
The point is simply to capture something of the historical speci city of
deportation, in terms of its subjects, its characteristic forms of reason and
purpose, its social and political assumptions and methods.
Exile
Exile is the most ancient custom of all nations. These are the words chosen by
Bernardo Tanucci, minister to the King of Naples, to justif y the expulsion of the
Jesuits from the Kingdom of Naples (Delle Donne, 1970, p. 142; Kedar, 1996,
p. 172). While Tanucci may have been exaggerating for effect, we can nevertheless concede that exile is indeed an ancient practice. Exile is used against the
individual who is understood to be a member of the political community or
268

nation. It is used as a form of punishment, but also security. Typical encyclopaedia entries reveal that in ancient Greece, exile was often the penalty for homicide
while ostracism was reserved for those guilty of political crimes.6 Athenian law
on ostracism gave the Popular Assembly the opportunity once a year to vote
whether to banish for 10 years the citizen considered most dangerous to the
establishment (Thomsen, 1972). In early Rome the citizen under sentence of
death had the choice between exile and death. The Romans used the word
deportatio to mean banishment to some outlying place within the empire, often
an island (Kedar, 1996, p. 166). Exile was also a common form of punishment
in the late Middle Ages when, again, it had a strong class component. Exile for
the poor could often result in banishment from their town only to nd the
gallows waiting where they sought refuge. For the rich it could be a less severe
form of punishment, allowing for travel, business, and the prospect of an early
and glorious return (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, p. 20). Generally exile
seems to have had the function of transmuting or lessening the punishment for
serious crimes. The Italian jurist Beccaria recommended banishment in cases
where individual s were guilty of disturbing the public peace, but also in cases
where they were accused of some great crime but there was no certainty of guilt.
It left the accused the sacred right of proving his (sic) innocence. Banishment
was a practice that nulli es all ties between society and the delinquent citizen.
In such cases, the citizen dies and the man remains. With respect to the body
politic, [civil death] should produce the same effect as natural death (Beccaria,
1963, p. 53, brackets in the original). It is perhaps this type of political reason
that Foucault has in mind when he equates expulsion with a form of political
death.7
This idea that with banishment and exile the citizen is liquidated leaving only
some kind of bare human is one that is echoed powerfully in more contemporary
re ections on the practice of deportation and the experience of the refugee. For
Hannah Arendt, the political condition of the stateless did not even approximate
that of a prison inmate who, deprived of various freedoms, was nevertheless still
within the political and legal order. The experience of the stateless was
altogether more dangerous and unprecedented. They represented a new kind of
human beingthe kind that are put in concentration camps by their foes and in
internment camps by their friends (Arendt, 1994, p. 111). They had lost the
right to have rights (Arendt, 1964, p. 296).
For Arendt the fate of the refugee was to endure the abstract nakedness of
being human and nothing but human (Arendt, 1964, p. 297). More recently
Giorgio Agamben has developed this insight, arguing for the political
signi cance of liminal experiences like banishment and the contemporary
condition of statelessness . These phenomena reveal how Western politics is
founded upon a particular relationship to, and politicizatio n of bare life. In
Western politics, bare life has the peculiar privilege of being that whose
exclusion founds the city of men (Agamben, 1998, p. 7). Whereas Foucault
(1990) places the entry of biological life into politics on the threshold of
modernity, for Agamben it is much more ancient. But modern declarations of the
Rights of Man further inscribed bare life within the political order. However, it
took the Holocaust, and in particular the terrible space of the Nazi concentration
269
William Walters
camp, to reveal how bare life can become exposed. Within the camps bare life
inhabits an indeterminate zone both within and beyond the political order, where
it is placed at the mercy of sovereign power. According to Agamben, todays
global refugee crisis, coupled with the vast numbers of people involved in
clandestine work and migration, points to a growing disjunctio n between a
politics organized in terms of nation-states , and bare life. As we will see in the
second part of this paper, the camp is both a symptom and a response to this
crisis.
The Expulsion of the Poor

The second kind of expulsion I want to consider is associated with poor policy
in early modern Europe. It is highly illuminatin g to consider the treatment of
poverty and labour in the early modern period for the purposes of comparing
different practices and logics of expulsion. In his magisterial account of the
rise of a capitalist market order in England, Karl Polanyi draws our attention
to the fact that land and money were liberalized and mobilized before, and
therefore in contradiction with, labour. For our purposes the salient feature of
Polanyis account is the Act of Settlement and Removal of 1662. This
established the principles of parish serfdom, and was only loosened in
1795. This act cemented parish responsibilit y for the poor, and sought at
the same time to protect the better parishes from an in ux of paupers. Only
with the good will of the local magistrate could a man stay in any other but his
home parish; everywhere else he was liable to expulsion even though in good
standing and employed (Polanyi, 1957, p. 88). These provisions were considered harsh and later amended so that only those who constituted , or were
likely to become a charge on the poor rate were subject to removal (Clark,
1931, p. 34).
Since the early poor law was notoriousl y fragmented and uneven in its
operation, then no doubt this act proved dif cult to enforce. Nevertheless, this
determination to restrict relief to the local poor, and the denial of such rights
to foreigners was a general feature of Western Europe in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Here we nd an important source of modern deportation
practice. As we will see below, the policing of the foreign poor becomes, by the
late nineteenth century, a major preoccupation of deportation policy. The vital
quali cation, of course, is that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the
foreigner is not de ned in national terms. As Torpey notes in the context of his
historical sociology of the regulation of movement: Historical evidence indicates clearly that, well into the nineteenth century, people routinely regarded as
foreign those from the next province every bit as much as those who came
from other countries (Torpey, 1999, p. 9). As modern aliens policy takes
shape in the nineteenth century, with deportation as an important weapon within
its armoury, it will reproduce this poor law logic, but increasingly in a context
where the salient distinctio n is not local versus foreigner but national versus
foreigner. 8 Hence we can agree with Lucassen who notes that in earlier centuries
the restriction of the poor relief by the cities formed a prelude to the national
aliens policy of later days (Lucassen, 1997, p. 249).
270
Corporate Expulsion
If expulsion on the basis of nationality and state membership is a relatively
recent phenomenon, expulsion on the basis of group membership is not. This is
a kind of expulsion which Kedar (1996) distinguishe s from exile on the grounds
that it involves the banishment of an entire category of subjects beyond the
physical boundaries of a political entitywhether principality , town, city state
or absolutist state. Whereas exile is typically targeted at speci c individuals , here
we encounter the expulsion of collective subjects. Without doubt, the basis that
recurs most frequently for corporate expulsion is religion. From the end of the
Middle Ages expulsion serves as a radical and important tool of governance
(Kedar, 1996, p. 174) situated along a continuum between massacre and conversion, aiming to police the religious beliefs and practices of populations . While
the religious persecution of Christians was certainly a feature of political life in
Rome, or of non-Zoroastrians in Persia, during the Middle Ages such persecution will become institutionalize d for substantial periods (Bell-Fialkoff ,
1993, p. 112). Jews were a frequent target for such expulsionsfor instance,
from England (1290), France (1306), Spain (1492), Cracow (1494) and Portugal
(1497). Similarly, in this category we should note the expulsion of Muslims from
Spain (1526) and of Moriscos (converted Muslims) (1609 14).
The fact that questions of religion and political loyalty are intertwined is clear
by the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Corporate expulsion can be seen as a
tool of state formation, occurring against the backdrop of the break-up of the
universal church. Indeed, for some observers its frequency, and concentration in
the western part of Europe is related to the fact that it goes hand in hand with
the emergence of the modern state system there (Kedar, 1996, p. 175). The
expulsion of Irish Catholics from Ulster in 1688, making land available for
settlement by English and Scottish Protestants, ts this pattern. The strategic
motive was to deny Catholic France and Spain a base for operations against
England. Similarly, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, which
prompted the ight of thousands of Protestant Huguenots from France, reveals
a certain connection between expulsion and confessiona l con ict.
Transportation
Rieber argues that as far as Western Europe is concerned, by the eighteenth
century expulsion as an of cial policy of dealing with the other, however
perceived, gave way to various forms of internal control and integration into a
state system shaped by the consolidatio n of the secular power of the national
monarch around a centralized bureaucracy and professiona l army (Rieber, 2000,
p. 5). He gives the impression that expulsion was a sort of paroxysm or
convulsion accompanying the birth of the modern state system, but that as the
latter matured, political authorities soon found other means to regulate their
populations . This argument is attractive in that it moves us away from seeing
expulsion in singular or exceptional terms, and regards it rather as belonging
to a repertoire of techniques of social regulation and, in this case, statebuilding.
271
William Walters
However, the argument that expulsion waned with the consolidatio n of
modern state power in Western Europe only works when con ned to the
government of religious dissidents.9 The advantage of framing our inquiry in
terms of forms of expulsion is that we identif y other practices of expulsion which
operate in relation to different historical trajectories. There is no singular
expulsion. This is clear if we take the case of the transportatio n of convicts and
political exiles. If the emergence of a more or less settled system of states in
Western Europe would see the withering of the corporate expulsion of religious
dissidents and minorities, the external practices of colonization beyond Europe
and internal practices of social repression underpinnin g these states, saw the
opening of a political context for this different type of expulsion.
With transportatio n we encounter a form of expulsion with certain resemblances to exile. These include its use as a form of punishment for political as
well as civil crimes, its deployment to commute a death sentence, and in some
cases that it held out the possibilit y of return. But it differs in several key
respects. First, it has a strong utilitarian underpinning . Transportation combines
the tactics of exile and forced removal with the game of colonization and
economic exploitation . Spain and Portugal had attempted this as early as the
fteenth century. But England was the rst country to employ the transportatio n
of criminals in a systematic way. Rusche and Kirchheimer argue that the
Vagrancy Act of 1597 legalized deportation for the rst time. For this act stated
that such rogues as shall be thought tt not to be delivered shall be banyshed
out of this Realme and all the domynions thereof and shall be conveied to such
parttes beyond the seas as shall be at any tyme hereafter for that purpose
assigned by the Private Counsell (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, p. 59).
Colonies like Virginia and Maryland were amongst the rst to receive Englands
poor and undesirable . But this was not to last. With the availability of an
alternative supply of forced labour in the form of slaves transported from Africa,
and with the liberation of the colonies from the Monarchy following the
American Revolution, the transportatio n of convicts to North America was soon
brought to an end. Rather, it was Australia, and especially New South Wales,
where this experiment in recycling convicts would be taken to its furthest point
(Hughes, 1986). Between 1787 and 1868, when agitation by settled free
labourers brought an end to the policy, over 80,000 convicts and political
prisoners were shipped to Australia. Yet Britain was by no means alone in
pursuing this practice, even if it did undertake it on an unparalleled scale. Until
1898 France used its colonies in New Caledonia for transportatio n purposes,
including its exiles from the Paris Commune, while French transportation of
convicts to Guiana was only nally abolished in 1937. Interesting also are the
cases of countries like Germany which, without appreciable colonies in the
nineteenth century, sought arrangements with other colonial powers for the
transportatio n of their criminals, or simply sold them as slaves. For instance,
Prussia had an agreement with Russia to accept Prussian convicts in Siberia
(Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, pp. 123 5). In such internationa l relations of
coerced migration we hear echoes of contemporary practices like the safe third
country agreement.
272
The connection with colonization , which explains aspects of the genesis but
also, by the end of the nineteenth century, the increasing political impossibilit y
of transportation , is not the only way in which this policy differs from the
practice of exile or corporate expulsion. We should also note at this point that
transportatio n is a mass phenomenon carried out on a routine, almost bureaucratic basis. Exile was less often a mass phenomenon. More typically it targets
the in uential, or those with political prestige. It is perhaps a compromise
between the subject and the sovereign. Transportation is a mass exercise.
Spurred on by the overcrowding of gaols, and the need for forced labour, and
targeting the nameless and the faceless, we might observe that it democratizes
the practice of exile.
Population Transfer
The nal form of expulsion that I want to survey for the purposes of this
genealogy of deportation is population transfer. If corporate expulsion is a form
of expulsion that re ected the Treaty of Augsburgs principle of cujus regio ejus
religiothat the religion of the state is that of the princethen population
transfer belongs to a more recent time, an age of biopolitic s when principles of
ethnic, racial and national homogeneity have displaced or reinscribed religion as
the marker for political order.
Population transfer is the neutral, technical name which national and international experts gave to more or less planned mass movements (voluntary and
forced) of people that convulsed Europe throughout the rst half of the
twentieth century. Population transfer was a policy to address what Europe
understood as its problem of minorities. This problem was in turn the
expression of, and the obstacle to the application of the principle of nationalitie s
to the political map of Europe, especially its central and south-eastern areas
(Jackson Preece, 1998). As new national states emerged with the break-up of the
old Prussian Kingdom and the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, the
phenomenon of national minorities located within the territory of other national
states became acute. The perception, especially under the circumstances of the
World Wars, was that the separatist and irredentist practices of these groups
would undermine national and international security. If the political norm was
one of self-determination for national peoples, and the idea that each state should
be a home for its people, and conversely, that each people should be
represented by a state, then population transfer was one technique fashioned to
meet this end. In this respect population transfer belongs to a series of methods
for governing the problem of minorities including minority treaties, the redrawing of borders, the staging of plebiscites, and, the most dreadful measure of
allgenocide.
An early instance of population transfer was the exchange of thousands of
minorities between Greece and Turkey, under the supervision of the League of
Nations and the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). Other exchanges
involved Bulgaria (de Zayas, 1988, 1989). But World War II saw increasing use
of population transfer with Nazi Germany as one of its leading and most
murderous practitioners. Ethnic Germans were repatriated from Romania, Esto273
William Walters
nia, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and many other states. At the same time, Nazi
Germany sought to cleanse itself of Jews, Slavs, and other groups that it
regarded as anti-social or sub-human through a combination of resettlement and
genocide. In the Nazi state, then, population transfer understood as a programme
of Germani cation, was taken to its apocalyptic extreme.
Yet it would be wrong to see population transfer and other forms of forced
racial adjustment as con ned to the policy of the Nazi state. While today it
might be associated with ethnic cleansing, for statespersons at the middle of the
century, population transfer was legitimated as an unpleasant but expedient and
technical means of effecting national and international order. Hence population
transfer did not end with the defeat of the Nazi regime. Under the Potsdam
Protocol the Allies sanctioned a wave of transfers that would culminate in the
removal of more than 14 million ethnic Germans from such countries as Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslavakia . I am not alarmed by the prospect of the
disentanglemen t of populations , Churchill famously commented on the Potsdam
proposals, not even by these large transferences, which are more possible in
modern conditions than they were ever before (De Zayas, 1989, p. 11). While
an academic commentary on the policy at the time could view it as an
instrument of the greatest importance in eliminating the most explosive danger
spots in Europe and securing the future peace of the Continent and the welfare
of its peoples (Schechtman, 1946, p. 24).
To take the trajectory of population transfer further would be to follow its use
in such contexts as postcolonia l nation-state formation, and Soviet communism,
but also, as a number of researchers have done, to nd its contemporary
application in the form of ethnic cleansing (Jackson Preece, 1998). As useful
as this exercise might be, it would deviate from my concern here which is the
study of the deportation of aliens. But population transfer is mentioned here to
demonstrate how expulsion, by the twentieth century, has become, in Foucaults
(1991) sense, governmental. I expand on the subject of governmentalit y below.
But here we can note that expulsion becomes governmental with population
transfer because it is now targeted at, and rationalized in terms of knowledges
of population . It is perhaps worth noting that with the early modern period,
expulsion was frequently used as a threat. It could be avoided if the subject
agreed to accept baptism, conversion, or foreswear the practice of usury.
Expulsion as population transfer operates on a biopolitica l territory where
difference is marked indelibly. Expulsion is no longer aimed at the holders of
particular beliefs or practices. Or rather, inasmuch as these are relevant considerations, it is now because they are markers of a deeper racial ethnic essence.
There is no question of conversion or assimilation since ones race is now
xed, immutable, interior. The persecution of refugees and others was, as Arendt
observed, not because of what they had done or thought, but because of what
they unchangeably wereborn into the wrong kind of race or the wrong kind
of class (Arendt, 1964, p. 294).
Preliminary Observations on Deportation
Having surveyed certain key aspects of expulsion in history, at this point we can
274

make several macrohistorical observations about deportation as a form of
expulsion. First, there is the question of its political spatiality and scale. As long
as deportation is studied in a purely contemporary setting, or within the terms of
international law, we lose sight of the fact that for many centuries the expulsion
of people has not been between states, but rather within empires, out of parishes
and cities, from estates and commons. Modern deportation is both a product of
the state system, and, as I will argue in the second section, one of a number of
techniques for the ongoing management of a world population that is divided
into states. Much the same can be said of population transfer. In this respect the
practice of deportation is like the category of the refugee: not natural but, as
recent work has argued, an effect of the division of the world into territorial
states. In a postcolonia l era in which the sovereign state norm and form has been
more or less globalized, expulsion cannot avoid raising the question of the
destination of the expelled. International law generally recognizes the principle
that states have an obligation to admit their nationals. The rise of deportation
as a form of expulsion is therefore marked from the latter half of the nineteenth
century onwards by the proliferation of internationa l treaties and laws, alongside
diplomacy and informal agreements, which seek to institutionaliz e this norm. As
Caestecker astutely observes in the case of Continenta l Europe where the fact of
contiguity encouraged national cooperation in expulsion matters, if expulsion
had previously been a unilateral affair, an act where the state casts out the
unwanted, deportation would tend to be bilateral (Caestecker, 1998, p. 91).10
This international character of deportation means that deportation is always
susceptible to politicizatio n not just on a domestic level, where protests may be
mounted in the name of the rights of the expellee. It will also be contestable at
an international level where states may bridle at the prospect of (re)admitting the
undesirable.
But in many instances deportation is more complex than repatriation to a
national state. In countless instances expulsion, especially when it is preceded by
denaturalizatio n or denationalization , will condemn the subject to a condition of
statelessness . In the war-torn chaos of mid-twentieth century Europe Hannah
Arendt clearly saw the implications of a world organized into territorial states,
and its concomitant, the national organization of citizenship. Only with a
completely organized humanity could the loss of home and political status
become identical with expulsion from humanity altogether (Arendt, 1964,
p. 297). Expulsion in the twentieth century will go hand in hand with the camps.
These became the only practical substitute for a nonexistent homeland and the
only country the world had to offer the stateless (Arendt, 1964, p. 284).
The second point to make at this stage is that deportation concerns aliens,
who, unless they are stateless, are at the same time legally citizen-national s of
other countries. Again, this might seem so obvious that it does not need to be
stated. Indeed, the international law treatment of the subject presents the link
between deportation and aliens as axiomatic and implied. However, seen in
terms of the long history of expulsion, the gradual restriction of expulsion to
aliens, and its corollary, the delegitimatio n of ethnic transfer, is something that
needs to be noted and explained. As we have noted, practices of exile, corporate
expulsion, transportation , and population transfer took the expulsion of indige275
William Walters
nous or long-settled population s to be normal (for ethnic cleansing it still is). The
right to reside in a given territory, or its corollary, the removal of the threat of
expulsion, is an aspect of the genealogy of modern citizenship that remains
under-explored. It is beyond the scope of this paper to suggest explanations as
to how citizens come to be more or less in-expulsabl e by their own governments.
But when this story is told, it will no doubt reveal that this was not a linear path
of progress but something prone to reversalno more so than with the mass
denaturalizatio n and denationalizatio n of German Jews in Nazi Germany, but
also of naturalized citizens of enemy origin in many other European countries
(Arendt, 1964, p. 279). Perhaps we will nd that the gradual strengthening of the
citizen territory link had less to do with any positive right of the citizen to
inhabit a particular land, and more to do with the acquisition by states of a
technical capacity (border controls, and so on) to refuse entry to non-citizens and
undesirables. In the broader sense it is also a consequence of former colonies and
dominions (for example, the United States and Australia) acquiring independence and state sovereignty, and thereafter refusing the status of dumping
grounds for the undesirables of the imperial centre.
The nal preliminary point to make concerns the symbolic eld which
deportation borders upon. Deportation represents a legalized form of expulsion,
and its legitimacy rests upon its administrativ e nature, and the observance of
national and international norms and laws. However, because of its proximity to
the wider eld of expulsions that I have sketched here, deportation is always
susceptible to and associable with these other practices. These other forms of
expulsion lurk in its shadows; their invocation always threatening to destabilize
its legitimacy. They are historical memories, like slavery with regard to the
contemporary politics of race, which can always be summoned by political
action. Doesnt a plane full of deportees resemble transportation ? Doesnt the
shackling and the chemical paci cation of deportees invoke the galley slaves?
Does not the clandestine way in which immigration authorities cooperate with
public and private airlines to prosecute certain deportations not resemble
human-traf cking in reversetraf cking by states and big businesses? Dont
politically-orchestrate d campaigns to deport Kurdish or Vietnamese refugees
recall the many other groups historically to be expelled within Europe? Perhaps
the contemporary deportation of aliens is invested with former practices and
historical memories in such a way that it can never be merely the deportation of
aliens.
Deportation and Forms of Power
If the rst half of this paper has situated deportation within a historical grid of
forms of expulsion, the second will locate it within a different analyticsof
forms of power and government (Barry et al., 1996; Burchell et al., 1991). This
is a second axis on which we can enhance its intelligibility . Here we will try to
see deportation in terms of wider logics of powerof sovereignty, governmentality and police. This exercise allows us to grasp something of the history of the
rationalizatio n of deportation. It will enable us to avoid the position which sees
in expulsion only the remorseless and monotonous persecution of the Other
276

(Cohen, 1997). Expulsion has certainly been imbricated with all manner of fears
of the Other. But the question posed here is: how has the conception and the
treatment the Other been bound up historically with speci c forms of power?
Deportation and Sovereignty

Deportation is clearly implicated in the exercise of sovereignty. Its intelligibilit y
with respect to sovereignty has been mostly secured through the discourse of
international law. I will only touch on this discourse here since it is the dominant
discourse about deportation and this paper is devoted more to examining other
dimensions of deportation and expulsion.
Within the discourse of international law the practice of deportation can be
derived from the sovereign right of states to control their territories and the
discretion they have regarding the admittance, and residence of aliens. The right
of a State to expel, at will, aliens, whose presence is regarded as undesirable, is,
like the right to refuse admission of aliens, considered as an attribute of
sovereignty of the State The grounds for expulsion of an alien may be
determined by each State by its own criteria. Yet the right of expulsion must not
be abused. 11 The treatment which international law accords to deportation and
expulsion revolves largely around this question. Internationa l law examines
deportation as a question of right. At the risk of oversimplifying we can observe
that until the middle of the twentieth century this was a discourse almost
exclusively about the rights, obligation s and duties of states to one another with
regard to the treatment of their subjects. It concerned the terms under which
expulsion might be considered arbitrary, and the legal and administrative
processes involved in enacting deportations. This legalistic discourse has been
transformed in the post-war era by the rise of the human-rights agenda. As with
other areas of international relations, this has meant that states no longer
monopolize the space of internationa l relations in quite the same way. While
states remain the agents with responsibilit y for interpreting and enforcing human
rights, this shift nevertheless does mean that individuals and peoples have
acquired a certain level of legal personhood and status within the international
sphere. As far as deportation is concerned, this is re ected in various treaties and
conventions which prohibit mass expulsion and which call for some kind of due
process to be followed (Henckaerts, 1995). At the level of administrative and
legal practice, therefore, we might observe there has been a certain individualization of expulsion.
Deportation and Governmentality
While deportation will be legitimated in terms of the right of the stateand
countered often in terms of alternative principles of rightsuch a juridical
perspective misses another dimension of power. This is its governmental
character. Modern deportation lies at the intersection of these logics of sovereignty and government. What is governmental power in contrast to sovereign
power? Here I follow Foucault (1991) and others who have advanced the notion
of governmentality. Foucault uses governmentalit y in a number of overlapping
277
William Walters
but distinguishabl e ways (Dean, 1999, Chapter 1). Governmentality is used
generally to refer to governmental mentalities, the link between power and
knowledge. However, it is a second, more historically speci c use which
interests me here. Foucault uses governmentality to identify the emergence of a
distinctly novel form of re ection on, and exercise of power in modern societies.
It is connected with the discovery of a new reality, the economy, and a new
object, the population. Foucault dates this moment to the early modern period in
Western European societies. Governmentality marks the point at which political
power comes to be concerned with the wealth, health, welfare and prosperity of
the population . Sovereign power involves the exercise of authority over the
subjects of a statethe deduction of taxes, the meting out of punishments, and
the taking of life. Government, on the other hand, is marked by its concern to
optimize the forces of the population . Government does not replace other forms
of power, but rearticulates them. Hence taxation, law and punishment are
directed not primarily towards augmenting the power and glory of the sovereign,
but to promoting the ends of population . But conversely, the promotion of
population will be used to advance the sovereign power of the state, where the
latter is understood as inserted in a eld of perpetual geopolitical con ict.
The deportation of aliens needs to be situated within this eld of governmentality, and not just sovereignty. My argument is that in the course of the
nineteenth century we can speak of a governmentalization of deportation. While
I can not undertake a full account of this process, I can sketch some of the
signi cant ways it is evident in the latter part of that century. First, it is well
illustrate d in the cases of Britain and the United States by the shift that occurs
at the level of the law in terms of what kinds of subjects and problems are being
identi ed as grounds for expulsion. At the end of the eighteenth century the
practice of deportation is still concentrated around the pole of sovereign power.
Its principal targets are political enemies of the stateagitators, subversives,
revolutionaries who undermine its authority. Britains Aliens Act of 1793 was
a direct response to fears of revolution unleashed by the French Revolution. For
the rst time, Parliament sanctioned the expulsion of aliens. While this Act fell
into disuse following the Napoleonic wars, the revolutionary wave of 1848 saw
the passage of further legislation , this time the Removal of Aliens Act (Cohen,
1997, pp. 357 8). Similar in character were the United States Alien and Sedition
Acts of 1798 which empowered the President to remove any aliens suspected of
treasonable or secret machinations against the government (Clark, 1931, p. 37).
To this day deportation remains an instrument to be used against those who
can be de ned as political enemies of the state. It will target foreign trade
unionists and dissidents during times of crisis, and especially during wars.
However, we can observe that by the end of the nineteenth century its targets
expand to embrace not just political, but also social enemies in the form of
various categories of socially undesirable persons. The enemies of the state
henceforth include various categories of person who are deemed to pose a threat
to its population , which is increasingly understood in racial and biopolitica l
terms, or to its economy or system of welfare provision. Hence there is Britains
Aliens act of 1903, a response to fears regarding an alien menace associated
with the in ux of Russian and Eastern European Jews. While this Act sought to
278

maintain a general policy of openness in immigration, it de ned as socially
undesirable, expulsable and excludable the mad, the destitute, fugitive offenders
and previous deportees (Cohen, 1997, p. 358). In the United States there is a
gradual expansion of the classes of person who warranted exclusion and
deportation. The initial targets had been Chinese immigrants under the Chinese
Exclusion Act, but by 1891 the number of excludable classes had been greatly
enlarged by the addition of paupers, persons suffering from loathsome or
dangerous contagious diseases, polygamists and so on (Clark, 1931, p. 44). In
the twentieth century the practice of expulsion is not only nationalizedas we
saw with population transfer. Simultaneously, it is socialized.
Another way we can trace this governmentalizatio n of deportation is around
the question of foreign or alien workers. As states became involved in the
regulation of labour markets and the management of economies in the twentieth
century, deportation found economic uses that paralleled its social purposes.
Here deportation was to function as the corollary of immigration policy and the
supplement to voluntary emigration. If immigration policy was often driven by
the need to recruit migrant labour from abroad, deportation was used to
regulate and enforce the return of these temporary hands during times of
economic downturn. This use of deportation rst became clearly evident during
the interwar depression when France, a state that had traditionally relied upon
immigration to meet labour shortages, and to a lesser extent Belgium, used
deportation as a means of exporting their unemployment (Arendt, 1964, p. 286;
Strikwerda, 1997, p. 63).
In key respects, then, the practice of deportation mirrors the rise of welfarist
policies and programmes. In the cases just given, it will be an instrument to
defend and promote the welfare of a nationally-de ned population a fact
re ected in the title of anti-immigration legislation such as Frances Law for the
Protection of National Labour (1932). But it is shaped by, and re ects the rise
of welfarist rationalitie s and mentalities at a more technical, administrativ e level
as well. If deportation was coming to be used as a de facto employment policy
in countries like France between the wars, then certain social principles
pertaining to employment would be extended to it. If responsibilit y for the
origins and relief of unemployment is socialized under the welfare state (Walters, 2000), and ceases to be the sole responsibilit y of the worker, then it is
possible to observe something similar with deportation. Like industrial disability,
unemployment, and old age, the view was that employers, and more generally
society, since they utilize and bene t from foreign hands, should also be
responsible for a share of the cost of repatriating such labour when it becomes
surplus to requirements. Hence in France in the 1930s we nd mining
companies, and later the French government, nancing the journey home of
their deportees (Caestecker, 1998, pp. 93 4).
But deportation and welfarism are connected in other ways. As the governmentality literature has emphasized, political programmes and projects only
become governmental when they nd certain technologie s capable of making
them implementable (Rose, 1999). It is fruitful to analyse citizenship at the level
of its technologies . If deportation becomes a technique concentrated upon the
non-citizen, as I have argued earlier, this presumes the availability or the
279
William Walters
invention of means to identify who is a citizen and who is a foreigner. It also
presumes the administrativ e capacity to police borders. Scholars of the history of
regulation and documentation tend to con rm that World War I is a watershed
in this respect, a time when borders are systematically patrolled and passports
checked (Caestecker, 1998; Sassen, 1999; Strikwerda, 1997; Torpey, 1999). From
1914 onwards we see a proliferation of schemes to document and identif y the
alien, including identity cards, registrations with police, employer and residence
permits and passports. The non-renewal of these various permits by of cials could
henceforth operate as a means to initiate deportation. Of course, in many cases
the national identity of a person was unclear. In this case the act of deportation
also entails a practice of identi cation, as it may with the asylum process today,
a site where the identity and the proper responsibilit y for the subject must be
xed.
While I lack the space to trace other mutations within this trajectory of the
governmentalizatio n of deportation, there is one development pertaining to the
present which bears noting. In many Western countries today we see a concern
with deportation less as a mechanism for shaping the substantiv e identity or
pro le of a population , or for intervening directly in the labour market. Instead,
there is a concern with the governmental mechanism itself. Governments are
presently obsessed with the need to tighten up their deportation and repatriation
policies. One of the main reasons they give is the need to maintain the integrity
of their immigration and asylum systems. The problem identi ed is one where
lax administratio n of deportationthe failure to execute deportation orders and
actually remove the subjectmarks a particular state as a soft touch. The fear
is that asylum shoppers will then ock towards that state to pro t from its
generous terms of admission. Strictly enforced deportation policies send signals
to asylum-seekers and illegal migrants. What is being governed is not the
population in a direct manner, as it was with population transfer or the deportation
of the socially undesirable, but the governmental system. The parallel is with
neoliberal critiques of the welfare system where the governmental system is
identi ed not as a solution, but as a contributin g factor in problems of poverty
and exclusion. The call is then for welfare reform, a term that becomes
synonymous with poverty policy. This seems to t the trend that Dean calls
the governmentalizatio n of government whereby the mechanisms of government themselves are subject to problematization , scrutiny and reformation
(Dean, 1999, p. 193). When deportation rates become targets to be met by
immigration and other departments, when national and international agencies seek
to compare levels and techniques of deportation across nations and exchange
information for best practice, then it seems we have governmentalizatio n of
government.
Deportation as International Police
Thus far I have argued that we can historicize deportation in terms of a process
of governmentalization . The latter is a development in which states become
actively involved in the protection and promotion of the welfare of their
populations . But we can go beyond merely identifying deportation in terms of
280

governmentality , and ask what kinds of governmentalit y invest and rationalize
this practice. The literature on governmentalit y has been concerned mostly with
liberal forms of government. Among the most important characteristics of liberal
government is indirect rule, a reliance on the positive knowledges of the social
and human sciences to delimit certain elds and objects of intervention , and an
ethical concern that government should be limited. Liberal rule is haunted by the
constant fear of governing too much. It does not seek to govern in totalizing
ways, but with the grain of spheres of existence that are always beyond the
formal institution s of power. The government of economic policy exempli es
liberal government, as does much welfare and social policy with its will to
empower individuals and families. However, I want to suggest that deportation
does not properly belong to this regime of liberal practices of rule, but to an
older lineagethat of police. Research on governmentalit y is beginning to
recognize the various ways in which older forms of non-liberal and illiberal rule
continue to structure the present, or are reactivated in modern settings (Dean,
2002). Deportation is consistent with this observation.
What is police as a form of governmentality , and in what ways is deportation
rationalized by it? While today police refers to a body of of cials charged with
the prevention of crime and the maintenance of the peace, in early modern
Europe, polizei refers to something broaderan art of government. Unlike
liberal forms of rule, which de ne themselves in part through their political
critique of police, police does not see order as spontaneous or natural, but the
effect of regulation. Police sits alongside other totalizing arts of government such
as cameralism and mercantilism. Security is attained through detailed administration and ordering. As Gerhard Oestreich observes, police is characterized by
its regulation mania (Dean, 1999, p. 91). Its original setting is local or
municipal government where police regulation extends to vast and, from a
contemporary perspective, heterogeneous array of issues, including sanitation,
religious practice, the treatment of the poor, sumptuary codes, civic manners and
public morality.
There are at least two ways in which deportation can be understood in relation
to police. First, at a national level, it is a form of policing territory and
population . We have already noted how deportation is anticipated by the local
police of the poor in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. But in the latter
part of the nineteenth century, as administrators come to re ect on the problem
of aliens, and to rationalize the use of deportation, they will understand it in its
modern sense as a form of national police. Lexpulsion nest pas une peine;
cest une mesure de police (Martini, 1909, p. 3). In its review of Europes
policies on aliens, Britains Royal Commission (1903) observed: on the Continent the question of the admission and still more of the expulsion of undesirable
Aliens is a matter of police regulation (p. 30). Although the twentieth century
will witness the juridi cation of deportation within national and international
law, in its inception it is an administrativ e not a juridical measure. It is an
instrument to protect and sustain public order and tranquillity , akin to the
removal of a nuisance. Consider the following summary of reasons for deportation which was produced by the Institute of Internationa l Law in 1892, at a time
281
William Walters
when legal experts and administrators were formulating the modern powers of
deportation. Here we nd the overlay of deportation as an instrument of police,
of routine administratio n with expulsion as an instrument to perpetuate sovereign
power:
(1) fraudulent entry into the territory, unless followed by a
sojourn there during a period of six months; (2) establishment of
domicile or residence in violation of a formal prohibition ; (3)
illness dangerous to public health; (4) mendicancy, vagabondage,
pauperism; (5) conviction in the country for offences of a certain
gravity; (6) conviction or prosecution abroad for grave extraditable offences; (7) incitement to the perpetration of grave
offences against public safety; (8) attacks in the press or otherwise against the institution s of a foreign State or sovereign or
against the institution s of a foreign State; (9) attacks or outrages
in a foreign press against the country of sojourn or its sovereign;
(10) conduct in time of war or impending war threatening the
countrys security. (Pelonpaa, 1984, p. 52)
Here is a form of power, then, which does not envisage a spontaneous order.
Unlike the classical image of immigration where actors voluntarily move in
response to push and pull factors, and more broadly, various forms of liberal
government, where the welfare of the population and social order is to be
optimized by harnessing the freedoms and the desires of individuals , and the
self-regulating mechanisms of market and population , deportation belongs to a
different rationality of rule. It employs a similar tactic to the poor law, drawing
a categorical distinctio n between those who should be granted the bene ts of
citizenship, however meagre, and those who must be managed authoritatively ,
evenly despoticly.
But deportation is more than just a form of police that operates on a national
population . Here I want to argue for a second and potentially more signi cant
dimension to the police character of deportation. It is that we should see the
deportatio n of aliens as a form of the internationa l police of population.12 Seen
from a national, or purely internal perspective deportation appears as the
exclusion and expulsion of aliens and the uninvited; it stands as an expression
of the hierarchical relationship between citizens on the one hand with full rights,
and aliens or denizens on the other, or the ways in which states discriminate
against non-citizens and outsiders. But seen from an international perspective,
deportation represents the compulsory allocation of subjects to their proper
sovereigns, or, in many instances of statelessness, to other surrogate sovereigns
(for example, the current practice of returning certain asylum-seekers to safe
third countries). In the face of patterns of international migration, deportation
serves to sustain the image of a world divided into national population s and
territories, domiciled in terms of state membership. It operates in relation to a
wider regime of practices including resettlement, voluntary return, political
asylum, temporary protection and so on, which together can be said to comprise
a global police of population . Extradition belongs to this series as well, though
extradition is in certain respects the inverse of deportationa recognition of the
282

sovereigns claim to have their subjects returned for the application of justice.
Following Hindess, we can see citizenship in a different light. Less the rights
and responsibilitie s accruing to individuals by virtue of their membership of
an appropriate polity but rather a marker of identi cation, advising state
and nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individua l belongs
(Hindess, 2000, p. 1487).
By discussing deportation as a practice within the international police of
population , I want to highlight its af nities with poor law practice. Despite their
signi cant differences, both operate with a logic of dividing and allocating
population s to the territorial authorities deemed properly responsible for them.
The poor law does this between localities; with deportation it is international.
One consequence of this observation is that we need to further revise conventional understanding s of the welfare state and the Marshallian narrative of social
citizenship. The Marshallian narrative is an account where universalism triumphs
over particularism, and where the advent of social rights spells the victory of an
ameliorist and social rather than a penal approach to poverty. For some time
now, welfare state and citizenship theory has challenged this rather Whiggish
account on a number of scores, not least for its anglocentrism and its genderblindness. But we can add a further challenge here. It is that the evolutionary
account is sustainable only if one ignores the international dimension of the
welfare state, and, by corollary, the national particularity of social rights. The
evolutionar y account of social citizenship makes sense only if we ignore the
treatment of groups like aliens who were often present alongside these social
citizens, but did not enjoy the same level of social rights. From the perspective
of the alien, the advent of the welfare state did not represent the full liquidatio n
or transcendence of the poor law. Rather, it involves a certain reconstitutio n of
its logic on regional, and today, a global scale. Seen from a global perspective,
the world comprises a patchwork of welfare states. Many of them are extremely
rudimentary, but the vast majority are organized in terms of norms of residency.
The age of the welfare state does not fully escape the logic of the poor law. As
the history of aliens policy reveals, at the same time that social policy was being
nationalized, deportation was a regular instrument in the export of the foreign
unemployed and other undesirable groups. Or put differently, at the same time
that technologie s like social insurance and schooling were serving to constitute
socially-integrate d societies, deportation, along with other legislation on mobility
rights, was operating to manage the disciplinary division and distribution of
social responsibilitie s across states.
There have been notable and positive changes in the status of aliens, as
theorists of postnationa l citizenship and membership suggest (Soysal, 1994).
Foreign workers in most Western states are not generally exposed to the same
level of arbitrariness of expulsion as before. In terms of social and civil rights,
and to a limited extent, political rights, there has been a notable convergence
between aliens, residents and citizens in the post-WWII period. This has been
taken furthest with the project of European Union citizenship which, on one
reading, embodies the goal of diminishing and even eliminating the disabilitie s
of alienage in other States.13 But aside from the situation of EU citizens,
Brubaker points out that many European countries did not dare expel guest
283
William Walters
workers despite terms in their contracts that allowed them to do so, because it
was actually felt that they were a part of the societies in which they lived
(Brubaker, 1989, p. 19). However, as much as the social and legal situation of
many categories of non-national s may have improved in many European states,
it is important to recall that new projects and new subjects of expulsion and
exclusion have been constitute d in the past 20 years or so, representing a
counter-tendency to the process of de-alienage. Amidst public and political
anxieties over bogus asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants (Huysmans,
1995), there are new targets for expulsion and deportation. What is notable here
is the way that deportation is itself becoming regionalized. Multilateral arrangements under the Schengen and Dublin agreements, and now under the EUs
Amsterdam Treaty, point to tendencies for deportation and exclusion to take
place not just from national territories, but from the EUs emerging regional
area of freedom, security and justice. One of the main aims of the Dublin
Convention was to prevent multiple applications for asylum in membercountries and to put an end to asylum-shopping . In effect, member-states
operate as proxy European authorities, deciding upon and in many cases
deporting asylum-seekers from the European space. In sum, in the future, we
might expect this international police to work not only between nations, but
between regions and nations.
The Camp as a Space Beyond Citizenship
I have discussed deportation as a form of international police that seeks to divide
and distribute population on a global basis, and which presupposes the idea of
citizenship as a marker of belonging within the state system. As it stands,
however, this account of deportation as internationa l police and, more generally,
in terms of sovereign and governmental power, is seriously incomplete. For the
most controversia l and troubling forms of deportation are not usually the return
of nationals to their home states. Rather, they have involved the stateless, the
refugee, the German Jew or Russian denationalize d and stripped of citizenship,
the refugees who, in desperate circumstances, have destroyed their own citizenship papers, and today the rejected asylum-seeker. The fact is that when
deportation has featured in these cases it goes hand in hand with the camp.
Practices of deportation need to be seen in relation to a wider incarceral
archipelago of detention centres, refugee camps and zones dattente.
In this nal part of the paper I want to examine the camp. This is not just for
reasons of consistency or out of some desire for completeness, but because it
offers important insights about contemporary citizenship, sovereignty and forms
of power. Foucault is well known for his observation that: A whole history
remains to be written of spaceswhich would at the same time be a history of
powers from the great strategies of geo-politics to the little tactics of the
habitat (Foucault, 1980, p. 149). What might the study of the camp contribute to such a history? Here we can return to Arendt and Agambentwo gures
who have explored the implications and consequences of the refugee for modern
political thought. A key insight that I take from Arendt is her observation of the
pervasiveness of the camp in twentieth century Europe. While the concentration
284

camp was the speci c outcome of the Nazis genocidal dream of racial purity,
its horrors should not obscure the fact that camps of one kind or another became
the routine solution for the domicile of the displaced persons by the time of
World War II (Arendt, 1964, p. 279) in a large number of European countries.
When she notes that the internment camp became the only practical substitute
for a nonexistent homeland and the only country the world had to offer the
stateless (p. 284) she reminds us that, like deportation, the camp is not merely
a dreadful anomaly or the expression of discriminatio n on the part of this or that
government. Rather, it is a logical consequence and an almost necessary
correlate of a world fully divided into territorial, nation-states . The great spaces
of geopolitics and their biopolitica l assumptions crystallize, and nd their
supports, in the camp.
However, it is with Agamben that we encounter the attempt to thematize the
camp as a diagram of power.14 For Agamben the camp holds the key to
understandin g the complex place of bare life inside/outside the polity. Foucault
famously proposed the panoptical prison as a (though, certainly not the only)
diagram for understandin g certain critical features of the political and social
logic of modernity, its deployment of power and subjectivity . Agamben attributes a similar signi cance to the gure of the camp. The camp is a
frightening zone of indistinctio n where we encounter sovereignty as nomos
the point of indistinctio n between violence and law, the threshold on which
violence passes over into law and law passes over into violence (Agamben,
1998, p. 32). If sovereignty operates through its capacity to de ne situations as
exceptional, and therefore requiring and justifying actions and procedures
outside the normal juridical order, then the camp is the materialization of [this]
state of exception (p. 174). But the camp is not a nite or particular institutiona l
complex. Rather it is a system of relations which is actualized in diverse settings.
We nd ourselves virtually in the presence of the camp every time exceptional measures are taken to institute a space in which bare life and the juridical
rule enter into a threshold of indistinction (p. 174). Hence the camp is materialized with the internment and concentration camps of the 1930s and 1940s, but
also, in other forms. It appears momentarily in the form of the stadium in Bari
where Italian police in 1991 herded Albanian immigrants before returning them.
It is also actualized with the international zone (zone dattente) of RoissyCharles-de-Gaulle airport, which has converted a hotel for the detention of
asylum-seekers, and which the French authorities de ne as outside the territory
of France.15 Within the international zone, the airport is con gured as the high
seas from the point of view of the immigrant: French obligation s and commitments to the refugee under international treaties are suspended. Meanwhile, the
camp proliferates in the form of detention centres, the frontline of the Western
states response to the global refugee crisis. The more notorious examples
include Camps eld in the UK and Woomera in Australia; but there are now
more than 100 such centres across Europe (Hayter, 2000, p. 113). The camp is
often a matter of expediencea detention area under the Palais de Justice in
Paris; or the British authoritie s use of a converted ferry (with its echoes of the
prison hulks) to detain mostly Sri Lankan Tamils in the port of Harwich (Hayter,
2000, p. 121). These are all spaces where the exception becomes the norm,
285
William Walters
where those without the right to have rights are exposed to indeterminate
waiting times, the risk of arbitrary treatment, and the threat of physical and
psychologica l abuse.
But in addition to de ning a space of emergency in which particular exceptional modes of treatment become normal, the camp represents a crisis of Western
politics and citizenship. It signals a sort of surplus of bare life that can no longer
be contained within the political order of nation-states : what we call camp is this
disjunction (p. 175). In the absence of a working cosmopolitan model of
citizenship, or other ways of organizing and distributin g rights, belongings , and
identities, and with the menacing growth of a politics of xenophobia and racism
that encourages publics to see the presence of refugees and aliens as threats to
their freedom, culture, and security, we have the campswe have border zones,
detention centres, holding areas, a panoply of partitions, segregations and
striations. The gure of the refugee reveals that the Rights of Man that become
ours naturally through birth, are in actual fact partial, provisional and inadequate. The camps stand as a sign of the rupture of the state people territory
complex, but also the permanently-temporar y attempt to suture it.
The dream of the perfect prison, of the school and other disciplinary spaces
was the production of a docile useful body, and a self-regulating, interiorized
citizen. However, the diagram of the camp does not presuppose a comparable,
positive kind of subjectivity . Rather, its logic is one of expedience and exemption.
It is not interested in projects of reform, so much as countering the dangerous
illegal global ows of impoverished humanity. If, following Giovanna Procacci
(1991, p. 161), the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were trans xed by
a fear of pauperism, with its dangerous uid, elusive sociality, impossible either
to control or to utilize, and if the governmental response included the great
strategies of territorial sedentarization in order to produce xed concentrations
of population (for example, anti-vagabondage laws, the poor law, and later,
public housing), then camps and deportations represent components of a contemporary sedentarization campaign which operates in relation to a local global
space. The camp delivers surplus humanity into a zone of indistinction , invoking
a near permanent state of emergency to place its subjects inde nitely on hold
on the edge of the juridical orderall so that the sovereign system of states
and its division of citizens to states can be re-established. Here surplus humanity
is caught in the cross-currents between the police and immigration authorities
and their moves to extra-judicial and arbitrary treatment, and the countermovements of the human-rights and immigrants-right s groups who protest such
forms of treatment. The camp is extraterritorial, in the sense that it can stand
outside the legal and juridical order, but also intensely territorial to the point
where the territorial regime of citizenship becomes dependent upon these
exceptions if it is to sustain the principle that all the worlds population can be
ascribed a country. Yet if the camp is quite different from the disciplinary
spaces which Foucault and others associate with modernity, it has at least one
thing in common. Like the workhouse or the prison, the camp is to be highly
symbolic; its harshness stands as a semio-technique (Dean, 1991, pp. 184 5;
Foucault, 1977, pp. 93 103) of deterrence, a signal that our immigration
systems are not a soft touch.
286

Despite the importance of Agambens contribution in linking questions of
refugees, migration and expulsion to broader questions of citizenship and power,
it is not without its problems. Above all, his account is rather one-sided and
crushingly dismal. In this respect it might be useful to consider some of the
various ways in which camps have been contested, both by antiracist activists
and by potential deportees themselves. Perhaps one could develop a counterconcept alongside the campcall it the sanctuary. Just as the camp is made to
materialize in airports, hotels, even in the ships that transport the refugee once
these are held at sea, then the sanctuary has been made by popular struggles to
materialize in a counter-movement, most particularly within churches. Take the
case of the occupation of Saint Ambroise church in Paris in 1996 by 324
Africans. This is an event that is now regarded as the founding of the
sans-papiers movement, a campaign that has sought to move beyond oppositio n
to particular deportations to the demand for the legalization of so-called illegal
immigrants. One reason for the signi cance of this movement is that through it
undocumente d workers and illegals, and especially the women within these
communities, have sought to become autonomous political subjects, rather than
merely the causes for which external groups struggle. As its manifesto declares:
We the Sans-Papiers of France, in signing this appeal, have decided to come out
of the shadows. From now on, in spite of the dangers, it is not only our faces
but also our names which will be known (published in Liberation, 25 February
1997; Hayter, 2000, p. 143). The sanctuary involves a strategic reinscription of
the sacred space of the church as a defence against the sovereign power of the
state. Like anti-deportatio n activities at airports, it dramatizes the practice of
deportation. Whatever else it may or may not accomplish, the sanctuary ensures
that deportation will not operate as a silent, routine administrativ e process.
Rather, it guarantees that deportation will be performed as a site of sovereigntyeither the state negotiating with the subjects of deportation (and thereby
recognizing them as subjects), or the state as armed bodies of men smashing
down church doors, seizing, arresting, pacifying, terrifying, removing bodies in
full display of the public.
In short, with the sanctuarybut also the various other campaigns to close
detention centres, the border-shacks and camps that demonstrate the forti cation
of European and North American border controls (see http://www.noborder.org),
the activities of the Collectif Anti-Expulsion and Deportation.class to mobilize
passengers against deportation in airports,16 the mobile, human-rights caravansone sees a politicizatio n of the permanent-exceptiona l order of the camp.
A pessimistic reading would see the sanctuary as an extension of the camp
self-internment? And doubtless many occupations of churches and other spaces
are little more than a last desperate bid to avoid deportation that it would be
wrong to romanticize or conscript as a grand political gesture. But a more
hopeful, and arguably more nuanced, reading of such events and movements is
that they are inventing ways to contest the expulsion of people from humanity.
In the process they are posing profound questions about our politics and practice
of citizenship. The question which the very name of the antiracist network, Kein
Mensch Ist Illegal, poses is precisely: within what kind of politics can a human
be illegal? Arendt wrote of freedom as a practice rather than a xed value or
287
William Walters
set of institutions , a practice in which participants call something into being,
which did not exist before, which was not given, not even as a cognition or
imagination, and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known
(Arendt, 1977, p. 151; Tully, 1999, p. 179). As counter-intuitiv e as it seems,
perhaps we can see camps and sanctuaries as spaces not just of nomos, but the
invention of new practices of freedom and subjecthood .
Conclusion
What is the relevance of this study of deportation for our understandin g of
citizenship? First, it has observed that deportation is more than an unpleasant,
coercive aspect of immigration policy. Deportation is less a contingent feature
and more a logical and necessary consequence of the international order. It is
actually quite fundamental and immanent to the modern regime of citizenship.
If citizenship, following Hindess, can be seen not just as rights and responsibil ities exercised within a polity, but a marker of identi cation, advising state and
nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individua l belongs, then
deportation (along with extradition and other forms of repatriation ) represents a
means by which this principle can be operationalized .
Deportation is certainly legitimated and authorized by the modern regime of
citizenshipthough we have seen in the course of this study that it is only one
of a number of ways in which expulsion has historically been rationalized. But
it is more than just a logical consequence of this regime of citizenship. To call
it a constitutiv e practice, a technology of citizenshipas I did at the outsetis
to say something else. It is to argue that deportation is actively involved in
making this world. The modern order of citizenshipin which population is
divided and distributed between territories and sovereigns, and in which rights
depend mostly on national membership within territorial politiesdoes not
reproduce itself naturally. In other words, we can see deportation like diplomacy,
economic policy, border controls, or schooling, as a practice that is constitutive
and regulative of its subjects and objects. Nothing illustrates more powerfully,
and more tragically, this sense of deportation as constitutive than the practice of
population transfer during the middle of the twentieth centurya point at
which the state is brutally harnessed to the goal of creating ethnically homogeneous nations. If this vision of the nation authorized mid-twentieth century
deportation practices (and still does with ethnic cleansing), a question I have not
resolved but which begs further research is: what kind of image of political
community is presupposed by deportation today?
But there is also a methodologica l point to be made here about how we might
study the changing content of modern citizenship. A key analytical assumption
of this paper is that it is useful to select a particular practice and follow it
over a relatively long historical period. In this way we are able to avoid some
of the pitfalls of more presentist perspectives. By comparing different forms
of expulsion it has been possible to trace signi cant shifts in the package of
rights, duties and expectations that attend citizenship. For example, we have seen
that a history of deportation offers certain insights regarding the relations
between citizenship, population and territory. A distinguishin g feature of the
288

contemporary practice of deportationat least in most Western statesis that of
a form of treatment reserved for aliens. As long as we study deportation in a
presentist light, we are likely to take this fact for granted. Yet it is something
which actually needs to be explained rather than assumed. For we saw that exile
and banishment, understood as practices which strip away a persons rights, and
sunder the ties to their community, have at various times been considered
appropriate forms of punishment for citizens.
An answer to the question of how and why citizenship comes to imply a right
to remain in ones own country, and deportation a practice suited only to
non-citizens, is beyond the scope of this paper. However, I suspect that a
convincing answer will require this process to be set within a framework that
more fully considers the international relations of citizenship (for example,
Mann, 1987). For the trend away from deporting ones own citizens is strongly
conditioned by international factorsboth the pressure of international norms
and conventions , but more signi cantly, the long-term process of territorial
organization. It is only when the world becomes more or less fully divided up
into territorial states that deportation begins to risk the fate which was consciously intended by the much older practice of banishmentnamely, expulsion
from humanity.
Notes
1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a workshop on Illiberalism, 6 July, Carleton University,
a seminar at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and at the British International Studies Association
Annual Meetings, University of Edinburgh, 17 19 December 2001. I am grateful to participants at these
events for their helpful comments, and to Barry Hindess, Robyn Lui and Christina Gabriel for discussing
the topic with me. I thank Matthew Hayes for his research assistance, and Canadas SSHRC for funding
this research.
2. , www.deportation-class.com/index.html . (accessed 5 December 2001).
3. Amongst the most notable of these has been the occupation of churches in Paris by mostly African
sans-papiers. See Hayter (2000).
4. See Aviation campaigns, , http://www.noborder.org/avia/index.html . (accessed 5 December 2001).
5. The most signi cant of these is without doubt Weber (1996). The originality of this work is to see
expulsion as the locus of a Foucaultian dispositif, and to trace the variable ways in which this system
of laws, practices and spaces has been articulated with the regulation of population. Weber concentrates
on Germany, whereas I have tried to study deportation in a slightly broader, European context. See also
Cohen (1997).
6. Exile, , http://www.encyclopedia.com . .
7. Foucault (1992).
8. Concomitant with the rise of the state system is therefore the nationalization of migration policy. This
becomes a policy dealing with the inside and outside of states, and the crossing of state borders. It
intertwines with the nationalization of the border, a subject I have followed elsewhere (Walters,
forthcoming). Hence it is problematic to write that International migration has signi cantly affected
international relations from time immemorial. For this view essentializes international migration and
greatly underestimates its modernity. The point is that states and other political organizations have
certainly worried about migration and movement, but only recently have they worried about movement
between nations and states, as Torpeys (1999) genealogy of the passport exempli es.
9. I am grateful to Barry Hindess for pointing this out.
10. The contemporar y use of readmission treaties might be located within this trajectory; see King (1997).
Such treaties are often between rich and poor countries and have marked power effects. One way of
reading the readmission agreement is as a form of international discipline whereby poor states are coaxed
into taking responsibility for their nationals. On the other hand, with safe third country agreements, states
289
William Walters
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
are obliged to accept persons who are not their nationals, but who have passed through their territories in
the process of claiming asylum in other countries. At present EU states employ such agreements to oblige
postcommunis t states to shoulder responsibilities for providing asylum.
Oda (1968) The individual in international law, in: Srensen (Ed.), Manual of Public International Law,
pp. 469, 482; cited in Goodwin-Gill (1978).
A possible objection to my adaptation of police as an art of international government might be the
following: how can there be an international police in the absence of a centralized, global policing
authority? Yet as Dean and Hindess helpfully point out, although there were centralizing tendencies in
seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, the enterprise of police was not synonymous with centralized
power. For police was expected to be taken up locally and by a variety of non-state agencies (Dean and
Hindess, 1998, p. 3). Similarly, it seems reasonable to consider the international police of aliens and others
as an activity undertaken on a dispersed, only loosely-coordinate d basisby states, but by other agencies
(for example, UN agencies) as well. In an unpublishe d paper Dean has outlined the notion of a global
liberal police, a concept which informs the present idea of an international police of aliens.
See Preu (1998, p. 146), who explains that this principle was rst articulated in nineteenth century
American constitutional debates.
But compare Agamben with Gilroy (1999), who uses the concept of camp and camp mentality to
problematize formations of race and nation. Gilroy advocates diasporic culture as an alternative to that of
the camp, and calls for a politics situated between camps.
See the critical discussion of such international zones in Council of Europe (2000).
See A Practical Guide to Interventing in Airports, published by the Ile de France section of the Collectif,
at , http://www.bok.net/pajol/ouv/cae/intervention.e.html . .
References
Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press).
Arendt, H. (1964) The Origins of Totalitarianism (Cleveland, World).
Arendt, H. (1977) What Is Freedom? Between Past and Future (Harmondsworth , Penguin).
Arendt, H. (1994) We refugees, in: M. Robinson (Ed.), Altogether Elsewhere: Writers on Exile (Boston and
London, Faber & Faber).
Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (Eds) (1996) Foucault and Political Reason (London, UCL Press).
Baubock, R. (1994a) From Aliens to Citizens: Rede ning the Status of Immigrants in Europe (Aldershot and
Brook eld, VT, Avebury).
Baubock, R. (1994b) Transnational Citizenship: Membership and Rights in International Migration (Aldershot
and Brook eld, VT, E. Elgar).
Beccaria, C. (1963) On Crimes and Punishments (Indianapolis, Bobbs Merrill).
Bell-Fialkoff, A. (1993) A brief history of ethnic cleansing, Foreign Affairs, Summer, pp. 110 21.
Benhabib, S. (1999) Citizens, residents, and aliens in a changing world: political membership in the global
era, Social Research, 66(3), pp. 709 44.
Brubaker, W. (1989) Introduction, in: W. Brubaker (Ed.), Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in
Europe and North America (Lanham, MD, University Press of America).
Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (Eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
Caestecker, F. (1998) The changing modalities of regulation in international migration within Continental
Europe, 1870 1940, in: A. Bocker, K. Groenendijk, T. Havinga and P. Minderhoud (Eds), Regulation of
Migration: International Experiences (Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis).
Carens, J. (1995) Aliens and citizens: the case for open borders, in: R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing Citizenship
(Albany, NY, SUNY Press).
Clark, J.P. (1931) Deportation of Aliens from the United States to Europe (New York, Columbia University
Press).
Cohen, R. (1997) Shaping the nation, excluding the other: the deportation of migrants from Britain, in: L.
Lucassen and J. Lucassen (Eds), Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New
Perspectives (Bern, Peter Lang).
Council of Europe (2000) Report by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demograph y (2000) Arrival
of Asylum Seekers at European Airports, Doc. 8761, 8 June.
Cruikshank, B. (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects (Ithaca, Cornell
University Press).
290

de Zayas, A. (1985) Population, expulsion and transfer, in; R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public
International Law (Amsterdam, North Holland).
de Zayas, A. (1988) A historical survey of twentieth century expulsions, in: A. Bramwell (Ed.), Refugees in
the Age of Total War (London, Unwin Hyman).
de Zayas, A. (1989) Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (Lincoln, NE,
University of Nebraska Press).
Dean, M. (1991) The Constitution of Poverty: Toward a Genealogy of Liberal Governanc e (New York,
Routledge).
Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (London, Sage).
Dean, M. (2002) Liberal governmen t and authoritarianism, Economy and Society, 31(1): 37 61.
Dean, M. and Hindess, B. (Eds) (1998) Introduction: government , liberalism, society, in: Governing
Australia: Studies in Contemporar y Rationalities of Government (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press).
Delle Donne, E. (1970) Lespulsione dei Gesuiti dal Regno di Napoli (Napoli: Libreria Scienti ca Editrice).
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London, A. Lane).
Foucault, M. (1980) The eye of power, in: C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and
Other Writings, 1972 1977, by Michel Foucault (New York, Pantheon).
Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality, Volume One (New York, Vintage).
Foucault, M. (1991) Governmentality , in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (Eds), The Foucault Effect
(Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Foucault, M. (1992) Genealogia del racismo: de la guerre de las razas al racismo de Estado (Madrid, Las
Ediciones de la Piqueta).
Gilroy, P. (1999) Race and culture in postmodernity , Economy and Society, 28(2), pp. 183 97.
Goodwin-Gill, G. (1978) International Law and the Movement of Persons between States (Oxford, Clarendon).
Hayter, T. (2000) Open Borders: The Case against Immigration Controls (London, Pluto).
Henckaerts, J.-M. (1995) Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice (The Hague, Martinus
Nijhoff).
Hindess, B. (2000) Citizenship in the international managemen t of populations, American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(9), pp. 1486 97.
Hughes, R. (1986) The Fatal Shore: A History of the Transportation of Convicts to Australia, 1787 1868
(London, Collins Harvill).
Isin, E.F. (2002) Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota).
Jackson Preece, J. (1998) Ethnic cleansing as an instrument of nation-state creation: changing state practices
and evolving legal norms, Human Rights Quarterly, 20, pp. 817 42.
Kedar, B. (1996) Expulsion as an issue of world history, Journal of World History, 7(2), pp. 165 180.
King, M. (1997) Le controle des differences en Europe: linclusion et lexclusion comme logiques securitaires
et economiques , Cultures et Con its, 26/27, pp. 35 49.
Koser, K. (2000) Return, readmission and reintegration: changing agendas, policy frameworks and operational
programmes, in: B. Ghosh (Ed.), Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair (Geneva, International
Organization for Migration).
Lucassen, L. (1997) Eternal vagrants? State formation, migration, and travelling groups in Western Europe,
1350 1914, in: L. Lucassen and J. Lucassen (Eds), Migration, Migration History, History: Old
Paradigms and New Perspectives (Bern, Peter Lang).
Mann, M. (1987) Ruling class strategies and citizenship, Sociology, 21, pp. 339 54.
Martini, A. (1909) LExpulsion des Etrangers (Paris, Sirey).
McGarry, J. (1998) Demographic engineering : the state-directed movement of ethnic groups as a technique
of con ict regulation, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(4), pp. 613 38.
Pelonpaa, M. (1984) Expulsion in International Law: A Study in Aliens Law and Human Rights with Special
Reference to Finland (Helsinki, Academia Scientiarum Fennica).
Polanyi, K. (1957) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston,
Beacon Press).
Preu, U. (1998) Citizenship in the European Union: a Paradigm for Transnational Democracy? in: D.
Archibugi, D. Held & M. Kohler (Eds) Re-imagining Political Community (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Procacci, G. (1991) Social economy and the governmen t of poverty, in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller
(Eds), The Foucault Effect (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Rieber, A.J. (2000) Repressive population transfers in Central, Eastern and South-eastern Europe: a historical
overview, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 16(1 2), pp. 1 27.
291
William Walters
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Rusche, G. and Kirchheimer, O. (1939) Punishment and Social Structure (New York, Columbia University
Press).
Sassen, S. (1999) Guests and Aliens (New York, New Press).
Schechtman, J. (1946) European Population Transfers, 1939 45 (New York, Russell and Russell).
Soysal, Y. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago,
University of Chicago).
Strikwerda, C. (1997) Reinterpreting the history of European integration: business, labor, and social
citizenship in twentieth-century Europe, in: J. Klausen and L. Tilly (Eds), European Integration in Social
and Historical Perspective: 1950 to the Present (Lanham, MD, Rowman and Little eld).
Thomsen, R. (1972) The Origin of Ostracism: A Synthesis (Copenhagen : Gyldendal).
Torpey, J. (1999) The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Tully, J. (1999) The agonic freedom of citizens, Economy and Society, 28(2), pp. 161 82.
Walters, W. (2000) Unemployment and Government : Genealogies of the Social (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Walters, W. (2002) Mapping Schengenland : denaturalizing the border, Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, vol. 20.
Weber, F. (1996) Expulsion: genese et pratique dun controle en Allemagne, Cultures & Con its, 23,
available on-line , http://con its.org/numeros_new.php 3 . .
292

Walters (2002) - Deportation, Expulsion, and The International Police of Aliens

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Walters (2002) - Deportation, Expulsion, and The International Police of Aliens

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]

On: 31 March 2015, At: 11:42

Deportation, Expulsion, and

To cite this article: William Walters (2002) Deportation, Expulsion, and

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

Citizenship Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002

Deportation, Expulsion, and the

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Compared with refugee or immigration policy, the historical and political

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

The Expulsion of the Poor

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation and Sovereignty

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 11:42 31 March 2015

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi